Leaderboard

Purism is well-defined as an art movement, but poorly defined as a philosophy. I'm leery these days of broad, subjectively-defined labels that don't serve us as well as we assume they do. I make conservative and liberal choices every day, but resist painting myself as one way or the other. Most purists don't realize how fragile and restrictive their worldview is, and see only the beauty of simplicity. A purist might claim that eating the plant a medicine came from is a better approach than taking the medicine, because the plant is the "pure" source. But in actuality, modern medicine removes the impurities and things you don't need from the plant to produce a more effective medicine (taking ephedrine as an antihistamine is far more effective than chewing on a bunch of ma huang stems). You have a misconception about science, that it's trying to control or take over the natural world. What science does is make sure the conclusions we reach are carefully and reasonably considered, and they ABSOLUTELY MUST agree with observations made in the natural world. In this case, "natural" means no magic, no deities breaking physical laws, only what we observe happening. IOW, science is a bunch of descriptions of nature that we've refined to such a degree that we're able to predict the future based on the present and past. Theory gives us this predictive power. As far as human "nature" is concerned, we're still figuring that out. Cooking our food led to bipedal locomotion, and gave us smaller jaws so we had more room in our heads for brains, and more time to dig around with tools. It led us to armed warfare, but it also put us on a par with better-armed predators and gave us a fighting chance. We didn't have fur to keep us warm and we figured out how to use the fur from animals we ate instead. In fact, we took the disadvantage and turned it around: we could run down an animal with fur because they'd get TOO hot, and eventually drop from heat prostration. Because of the amazing things we can do that other animals can't, humans are often perceived as anti-natural, or outside of nature, but I assure you, we're very much a part of it. In fact, I would go so far as to say viewing humans as "unnatural" is dangerous, and could give some permission to consider us as above the rest of life on the planet.

1) Literally all that's in the mRNA vaccines is mRNA, phospholipids and phosphate buffered saline. All of these components have been widely used in other medical applications for a long time, and it's actually a shorter and less risky list of ingredients than many widely used live attenuated and inactivated vaccines. There is actually reason to expect that mRNA vaccines are LESS likely to cause anaphylaxis than other vaccines rather than more. 2) All tests so far have shown that while the antibodies induced by the vaccines can have reduced binding efficiency to mutant variants, the binding rate is not zero, so the vaccines offer some protection to mutant variants. 3) Over 300 million doses of mRNA vaccine have now been administered. Anaphylaxis has occurred at a rate of 11.1 per million doses and zero deaths have been recorded. 4) There is no causative explanation for why CBD would lead to reduced COVID19 infection rates, nor empirical evidence that it does. Ergo, the suggestion that CBD should be taken instead of a vaccine for ANY disease is like saying that keeping your eyes open while driving a car is a healthy alternative to installing the brakes. Edit to add Childrens Health Defence is an anti-vax organization who have demonstrably spread misinformation and false conspiracies about vaccine safety and have no place in any scientific discussion of virtually anything.

I am having difficulties understanding what you are trying to say. After re-assignment surgery testosterone suppressors are used in addition to estrogens, both of which reduce testosterone levels. After an about one year- regimen the levels are typically stably reduced to that of cis-women and I believe current regulations require that transgender women need to maintain these low levels in order to compete. I.e. in you example only the cis-woman is expected have higher testosterone levels. If the trans-woman show enhanced testosterone levels, it is not because of hormone therapy, it is despite of it (and again, these tests are done routinely, so I also do not quite understand why you seem to claim that they aren't and I cannot see anyone stating that they shouldn't). Or do you mean transgender men? Because they would get testosterone supplements. In that case you need to be more specific (heh) in your explanation as most of the discussion was about how transgender women might have an unfair advantage. And from what I understand trans-men are allowed to compete without restrictions.

So let's review what I said to Curious. "Why are you "concerned"? Is someone in danger? Do you have examples of injuries? This is just another issue concerning sports, along with equitable pay, the rule regarding turnovers due to fumbles that go out of the end zone, and the use of HGH. Trying to scare people with scenarios like Mike Tyson killing young ladies in the ring simply feeds into peoples' fears and makes this a more difficult issue than it needs to be. People also used to be afraid that women would die if they were allowed to compete in the marathon." I asked him questions. Told him how I viewed the issue. And suggested that Mike Tyson was a bad example. What was next? When Curious suggested someone could be in danger I discussed how safety concerns could be seen when there were only women or only men competing but that we didn't stop people who were too powerful from competing. "Mike Tyson brutalized many of the fighters he faced. Some literally ran away from him in the ring. If we take your scenario of "different categories for different danger levels" then we would need boxing weight classes such as welterweight, cupcake welterweight, and ass-stomping welterweight. When Ronda Rousey was at her prime no one could fight her without a serious risk to life and limb. She would not have been allowed to fight anyone due to being put into a fighting class occupied only by herself." And then finally when Curious said "You need to get of your high horse and stop assuming people who are interested in this have an anti trans agenda." I responded with: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If you don't want us to assume you and another have an anti-trans agenda then stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda." So... Where did I stop him from voicing his opinion? Where did I stop him from explaining his point of view? When did I jump down his throat and accuse him of having an agenda? This is where you come closest to what I said, but as I explained to Area54, starting out a conversation on Transgender's right in sports should not begin with: "I support transgender rights, but there are serious issues with former men entering women's sports. Mike Tyson would be an example." as it sounds (to me anyway) as if the person has an agenda. I'd even go so far as to say that Curious' "get off your high horse" was at least as provocative as my "stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda.", and his comment was of course said prior to my "agenda" comment. As I seem to be under focus here I'd be happy to have you parse my comments to Curious and tell me exactly which ones are out of line. I promise I'll take your comments seriously.

I think there is a delicate balance here that needs to be found. My first reading was similar to yours. However, there is an extensive context of exclusion which I initially did not consider. The big issue is that historically many exclusionary policies have been enacted base on such potential and potentially unfounded concerns. Many of these have deep impacts to this day. Examples include anti-drug or health policies. For example, it was believed that black folks feel less pain, have thicker skin and are more susceptible to addiction. These has resulted in systematic maltreatment based on these myths which apparently are still persistent among health care providers. So I think that before any measures are considered, one should actually find strong evidence for the need of action in the first place. After all, sports carry inherent risks as others have pointed out and as far as I can see there are no substantial studies indicating that inclusion of transgender folks significantly increases risk beyond the usual baseline. And I do agree that the invented scenarios are probably not a good basis to start of this discussion. However, I think the resulting discussion made it clear that OP provided the opinion in good faith. While the points about how problematic the starting might be are valid, further discussion of motivation might derail the topic needlessly.

But like many other discussions which should take place about some important subjects, this has descended into absurdity, accusations and recriminations, just as quick. If people aren't allowed to voice their opinions without even the chance to explain their point of view, before the 'pack' jumps down their throat, and accuses them of having 'an agenda', how can we possibly have a serious discussion ? Whatever happened to tolerance for others' opinions ? I've voiced this sentiment previously, if all we want from members is an 'echo', then I, and other members, see no need to participate in opinion based forums, as there is NO DISCUSSION.

It is noted in my original reply that the 2009 experiment you linked to does not show physical monopoles. Here is a description of the experiment, note that the opposite pole does exist as I said, but that it is hidden away creating a "quasiparticle that serves as a magnetic monopole analogue." So divB = 0 is currently safe, though as MigL notes (and again is discussed in the table in the article i linked to) if a monopole is ever found it is easy to modify this equations to accomodate that.

I'm a purist, but honestly you've got a point

You're alive, so you're completely capable of coping with life. Our curiosity has nothing to do with instincts, and everything to do with higher intelligence, so it's completely explicable. Our "bitter primitivity" is a default for ALL animals. It's only our higher intelligence that helps us see where our primitive behavior doesn't serve as well in certain situations. It's something a reasoning human has to work with daily, trying to decide if it's better in this situation to compete for resources or cooperate for a better outcome. Our bias towards materialism is born from our superior use of tools, which is another aspect of higher intelligence. Greed for wealth is one thing, but our desire to have "things" is usually because those things are useful, and having more of them is better than having less. I disagree that the whole species is "aimless". I question a need for "complete focus" on our part as well. There are enough of us that we can focus on many different things. And as for humans lacking self-esteem as a whole, I think it misses the mark by quite a bit. We're a species in a unique set of circumstances, where we have animal behavior that has traditionally served us well, but we lack many of the pressures those behaviors were evolved for. We don't hunt and gather anymore, humans are specialized to an astonishing degree, and our communications have global consequences now. We're at war with the notions of what is different/dangerous and what is different/advantageous. Cooperation is thousands of times more beneficial than competition, but competing for resources is a basic trait that's hard to resist. We have plenty of aim, but I would imagine we aren't aimed at what YOU think is important. YOU have chosen to reframe and redefine everything, which makes things seem even more disjointed. I think if you gave mainstream science another try, you'd discover LOTS of studies to interest you, and a lot less pushback from those like you who want to make the world a better place.

I came across this review in the Journal of Medical Ethics which suggests there is enough evidence that tranwomen athletes have an unfair advantage under current IOC guidleines to warrant discussion and further research in the area. This later review in Sports Medicine came to the same conclusion.

Sorry if you got the impression I'm singling you out Zap. I've been part of the 'pack' myself; usually in science forums, in opinion based forums I tend to be the underdog and get ganged-up on. I don't consider this a 'rights' issue. Of course the transgendered have the right to participate in sports. However, if the sport is competitive, we have to find a way of levelling the playing field so that no one has an unfair advantage due to 'artificial' means, such as a surgical/hormonal procedure. This is already done in some cases, and in others has had considerable discussion by the sport's governing body. I'm sure you're aware that testosterone, and specific variants such as HGH and steroids are considered performance nhancing drugs, and are banned in many sports, for the simple reason that they bestow an unfair advantage to the user, and renders the sport uncompetitive. As I'm sure you know that 'Bladerunner', O Pestorius, had a surgical procedure to replace his lower legs ( due to a disability ) with composite prosthetic limbs. There was much discussion about it due to the fact that the prosthetics gave him considerable advantages over runners without. Would that have been discriminating against the disabled, or simply an attempt to make the sport competitive? ( all academic now that he's convicted of murder ) A sex change procedure involves both hormonal treatment as well as surgical proceures. If these treatments/procedures give that person an unfair advantage in that class of that sport, they are making it uncompetitive. That is the argument as I see it. I suppose Curious' over the top Mike Tyson example would be similar to mine if I had used The Six Million Dollar Man ( 80s fictional TV show ) rather than O Pestorius ( Colonel Steve Austin could run at 60 mi/hr ).

Are you against shale gas and fracking technology only? Or against drilling tradidional way natural gas too? In your posts you are mixing them. 39 mln tones worldwide is leakage from both technologies. Fracking is minority of worldwide production of gas. Contrary to US were it is dominant technology. (People in US are often forgetting that World is not only US..) Decide if you want to talk about US or World. Don't mix World data with US data. Keywords for search engine "natural gas market share" "shale gas market share". https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27512

As you have admitted, you have little interest in sports, so I need to make some 'background' explanations. Let's stay with Olympic level sprinting competitions, as Curious has already posted some data on the subject. Ben Johnson, Canadian, and the fastest man alive in 1988, was stripped of his Olympic gold medals in 1988, and awarded to the 'slower' Carl Lewis,apparently because C Lewis' doctors were better able to mask the presence of testosterone derivatives in his urine. All naturally born male, and female, sprinters at these levels of competition are screened for these performance enhancing drugs, yet you are proposng that transgendered sprinters should not be screened because their levels are 'close' to the naturally occurring levels of their reassigned sex. THAT is an unfair advantage. Do they get to skip testing altogether, and we have their 'word' that they are not boosting their levels ? Should we have a set baseline for levels in a typical male, and a typical female, when we both know there is no 'typical' ? Should we have a separate class for athletes who need to boost their levels because of sex reassignment ? I really fail to see how this is not worthy ( or too sensitive ??? ) to be discussed. Do we now just bury our heads in the sand for fear that discussion might 'hurt' feelings ? ( are we aknowledging that certain peoples mental framework migh not be robust enough to handle such discussion, and, that thinking they were born with the wrong sex, is the least of their worries ? )

You Stoned?

I've put that link because there is pointed to similar logic by different doctors, now how antivax is that portal its irrelative, we can question the premise do ... 4) ... about CBD in the proposed link there are offered studies in the footnotes, and about any control group trials the problem lies in the big'pharma! simply if people heal themselves with own CBD phytotherapy then the diminished profit of the big pharma would disbalance at best eg. the us-economy [1] its simple its left on personal knowledge, altho many terminally ill from cancer healed themselves with CBD ... ... 3) ... but as in case with covid-19 statistics whether about mortality of the virus or the vaccination, western authorities can skew the statistics how they like or want, at least they are doing that in front of everyone for a while in few other crucial fields [1][1] 2) and 1) its not mine to judge what will be the side effects, I am not virologist pharmacologist or epidemiologist, simply saying these mRNA vaccines are still experimental technology, without any insurance except fear propaganda, as science biology altho knows neatly many things still cant say that is enough insightful so it could edit DNA RNA or Immunity per'se and that to have no side effects, I proposed above in the 3rd post that in the field of bio'resonance we are stil light years behind, simply this is now trial&error approach, which in ww2 was more easy as eugenics, but now it must be seled as fear from the grip and normally people seeing the earth life as ultimate existence are willing to subdue themselves as humanistic junkies almost to eugenic experiments, as I said this is logical approach for those that are on deathbed but for all cmon ... think here its not in question only the free will about immunization how someone will approach this pandemics i.e. in natural or artificial manner, but above all is the blackmail of possible introduction of health-passports, and this by all mean is wrong how quietly is announced without any debate around without any question to be allowed almost as technocracy introduced on small door, next would be substitution of the fiat by digital currencies, maybe in parallel [1][1] and in the end we just need one big fat government that will decide who is fit for super'humanity and colonizing new virtual worlds!